Matos v Challenger Equip. Corp.

Matos v Challenger Equip. Corp. 2008 NY Slip Op 03684 [50 AD3d 502] April 24, 2008 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Richard Matos, Appellant,
v
Challenger Equipment Corp., Doing Business as Consolidated Appliance Services, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

—[*1] Alpert & Kaufman, LLP, New York (Gary Slobin of counsel), for appellant.

Cohen, Kuhn & Associates, New York (Gary P. Asher of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered May 7, 2007, which, in an action for personal injuries, granted the motion of defendant Challenger Equipment Corp. (Challenger) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Challenger made a prima facie case of entitlement to summary judgment by establishing that it did not make repairs to the griddle top of the oven at plaintiff's employer, the instrument which caused plaintiff's injury. The work order and invoice relating to repairs effected approximately two weeks prior to the subject accident demonstrate that the work performed did not relate to the griddle top (compare Royal v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 122 AD2d 132 [1986]). The affidavit from plaintiff's expert submitted in response to Challenger's motion lacked an appropriate evidentiary basis to create a triable issue of fact (see Butler-Francis v New York City Hous. Auth., 38 AD3d 433, 434 [2007]). [*2]

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Friedman, Sweeny and Moskowitz, JJ.